Legal Opinion

George v. Pierce

California Supreme Court

Decided December 29, 1898No. S. F. No. 883PublishedCited by 20 opinions

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the- City and 'County of San Francisco denying a new trial. J M. Seawell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtGaroutte, J.

Plaintiff, claiming to be pledgeholder brings this action for conversion of the pledged property. Some of the facts presented by the record are as follows: De Long-owned a large tract of land in Marin county, upon which land he kept a great number of dairy cows. He borrowed twenty-five thousand dollars from Cowell and gave these dairy cows into the possession of George, the plaintiff herein, as pledge-holder, to secure the lien. During the life of the pledge De Long, under the provisions of the Civil Code, made an assignment for the benefit of creditors, and Pierce, the defendant, became the…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Stevens v. IrwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  2. Godchaux v. MulfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
  3. Levy v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Murphy v. MulgrewCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Francisco v. AguirreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Hassell v. BungeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Krusi v. Bear, Stearns & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1983
  3. Guthrie v. CarneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
  4. Sequeira v. CollinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  5. Lilienthal v. BallouCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API